text:
Pat Caddell gave an important talk this past week entitled "The Audacity of Corruption" and it addressed some themes that are very dear to my heart. Most significantly, corruption and bias in the media. I suggest that you find time to watch the whole speech.
Pat Caddell closed with these words: "The press's job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and go to serve—to decide that they will now become an active participants—when they decide that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if…we allow this stuff to go on, and…we've crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about."
Source: Pat Caddell – "The Audacity of Corruption"
Thank you. Glad to be with you. This could take a long time, but we don't have that, so let me just get right to this. I think we're at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people. That changed in 1980. There's a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of "He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts"—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.
Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that's been pointed out to me. Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they're married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever. But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances. We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.
This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust—the Congressman [Lamar Smith] made reference to an earlier poll—when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and it's the highest in history. For the first time, 60% of the people said they had "Not very much" or "None at all." Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, Independents were 31%. So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well. I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.
A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called "The Audacity of Cronyism" in Breitbart, and my talk today is "The Audacity of Corruption." What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.
The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe. David Plouffe, who is the White House's Senior Advisor—and was Obama's campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria. Now, let me tell you: There's nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn't expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don't. And no one has raised this in the mainstream media. He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions. No one asked him whatsoever about that. He was not inquired. George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms. I mean, he's a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don't ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who's going in the White House—when we're talking about Iran. I just finished surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what's happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending. This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we've done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States. And here's a man who's being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!
The third thing I would say is that—then there's of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the "leaker-in-chief." I mean this ridiculous running around—"How did these secrets get out?"—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security. In Mr. [David] Sanger's book [Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, "The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon"—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—"You know, all the Republicans have to do"—you know, I talk often about the "Corrupt Party" and the "Stupid Party," but the Stupid Party couldn't be stupider when it comes to things like this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked. Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell's administration we had Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator. That's a really unbiased source! And the press, of course, won't look into this. It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have called them down. Yes, the President could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say "I will not answer that question, sir" on the question of "Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?" As she said when she read Sanger's book, "My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don't know!" I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they're playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.
Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption. 60%, or 80%—it's closer to 80% I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the President and this administration's great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama. But nobody says a word. Of course Republicans don't raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get back in power. And, of course, the press doesn't because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.
When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I've ever been, this is true, because I think it's one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past. To give you an example of the difference, I'll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren't to be manipulated. I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps. Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, "We're not going to be manipulated." This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together. The problem here is that no one will name names.
But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It's not about politics. First of all we've had nine day of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers. If a President of either party—I don't care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified! It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush's "flying over Katrina" moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.
It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I'd do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn't out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying "This is a premeditated attack." Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it's a minor reference. Oh, now we've decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.
This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general's inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don't do it. But I want to go through two other quick points.
[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the "Blind Sheikh" [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who's responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I've been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he's the head of the Muslim Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he's the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The President—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.
Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about. Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it. But the bias, the polling, it's very complicated. Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign. When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn't be reported. And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don't know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it's purposeful. But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein's JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback. We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don't. The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite organizations like AIM and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they're no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out. If I were the Romney campaign I would've been doing this for months! I'd have been looking at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people, "They're not trying to stop me; they're trying to stop you! And they are here to do this!" And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.
Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press. You know, people have their own agendas, and often it's not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don't do it. And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of "You don't attack someone in the press"—or "You don't get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel"—doesn't apply anymore. There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn't have the confidence in the press that they once had.
But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press's job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if that—we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about. And so that's as much as I can do in twenty minutes. So then we—we have a few moments for questions. Yes, sir?
ARONOFF: Let's get a few questions here.
AUDIENCE MEMBER : Yes, I wanted to offer my interpretation for why this dynamic is happening. I'd like your reaction. I think that the media is working with the government, because the government hands out so many freebies—
CADDELL: Yes.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: —you know, for market share, and, therefore, they have to work in sync with them in order to ensure the good graces. I think, also, the advertisers who generate the revenue for the newspapers are also getting those freebies, and so they can then influence the media—
CADDELL: The corruption in this town is so great. Everybody in Washington seems to almost be on the take—with the exception of everybody in this room, and the assistants here. But, I swear to God, it's so—the idea that I should get something, you know—the reason, when you have firms that have Ed Gillespie in business with Jack Quinn, who was the counsel for Bill Clinton, and responsible for the pardon of Marc Rich, among other things, is because everybody in this—those people on K Street, in both parties, are about arrangements and money. Everyone in the press is. We have stimulus money being given. We have people who, as I said, the relationships, when people are making contracts, and their husbands and wives are getting—Jay Carney's wife works in the government! Now he works—he was the head of the Time Magazine! He was a liar then, and a liar now, apparently! You know—and nobody says there's anything wrong with this. And you're right: Everybody's on the take here, and everybody's cutting up their stock. That's why, what used to be one of the best and most important things for the press, which was the investigative journalism of corruption and money, the stealing of the taxpayers, the looting of the Treasury, isn't an issue, and why no one speaks of it in this town. Yes, sir?
AUDIENCE MEMBER 3: Pat, just a quick question. Is it in violation—can it be seen as a violation of their charter for the major networks to demonstrate such obvious bias? I mean, is that a violate their FCC license agreements?
CADDELL: Well, their license agreements only go to their stations. They don't really go to the networks themselves. But I—you see, that's why we're at this slippery slope. This is what scares me. Because you start saying, "Well, somebody should do something about this."
My argument, when I speak to the press, is very simple: One day you're going to get my combination of George Wallace and Huey Long running for public office. He's going to get up and say how—he's going to point out "How the press is going to get me, and let me tell you what they're going to say about me, because they want to stop me," and he's going to say, "You know what? We've gone too far with this First Amendment stuff. We need to make them serve the people." We're sliding toward a system by establishing the fact that the press, in fact, has prostituted themselves in the service of a political party, or a political candidate, and once you go down this road and say, "That's happening," then people say, "Why do we need a First Amendment? Why should we protect them? They're not protecting us." That's the threat here. That's the danger that I worry about, because we desperately need a real free press, whatever its faults, that protects the people. And soon, they will be owned by the people—we're getting very close to that. Watching the coverage of this stuff, in the last ten days, on Libya, and the press corps and the networks serving as nothing but offshoots of the White House Press Office, is really scary. We're going to get to this question, because that is down that road. These people are going to destroy freedom in America. I don't care about their partisan preferences, I care that, in the end of the day, somebody's going to say, "Enough of this!" And somebody will carry the day, and that'll be that. Yes, sir?
AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: Thank you. You—thank you! Incredibly good twenty minutes! I agree with everything you said! I am very concerned about Romney's poor campaign, combined with the media bias the way it is. Is there anything that Romney can do at this point?
CADDELL: Well, he should've been out there already! He should've been out there pushing back—and so should the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment, as I said, in this town—I mean, all they seem to be in the business, to me, a lot of the establishment, is getting a lot of money to line their pockets, and not fighting or doing things that are effective. Why aren't they out there challenging this? Why isn't Romney himself getting up and saying, "I'm running against two organizations: I'm running against the Democrats and the President, and I'm running against the mainstream media, which will not tell you the truth"? Now let me tell you something: You want to liven up some of your rallies? That'll do it. But they don't do it because this man dares to be cautious. He's going to dare-to-be-cautious himself right out of a race that was his to lose, and he's losing it.
ARONOFF: One last question. Anybody? Go ahead.
AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Are there no patriots in the media who—
CADDELL: Oh, yes, there are! There are some.
AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Do they not see where—
CADDELL: Well, the problem is—let me say this—because nobody raises the question, because no one raises from the viewpoint that I'm raising it from. To raise it from the viewpoint where Republicans or conservatives "We don't like what you're doing to us," only makes them dismiss that. What is not to be dismissed is what this is doing, and what it is in terms of the specifics of challenge. These individual reporters—let me tell you something about the press: Reporters become reporters and don't enter the political fray because, basically, they can't stand the heat. That's my experience. You ever watch reporters under attack in a public venue and so forth? They wilt like—they melt like ice on the equator. The fact is that they need to be called out. Their organizations need to be called out. Ezra Klein still writes for The Washington Post? I mean, this is unbelievable! They had a secret operation group, "Journo" group, online, coordinating how they would promote Obama, and how they would attack Republicans—and he's still there? But nobody calls out the publisher, or the editor, or whatever—there is no effort here—or calls him.
The fact is, if I were out there, if I were doing one of these campaigns, I wouldn't let one of these guys by with anything. I would make the fact that the American people, already expressed in the Gallup poll, say—I would give them all the evidence they need to confirm their beliefs. I would change the dialogue here. But until that happens, you're gonna have two teams—your whole team has an echo chamber of support—attacking you. How do you ever expect to win? Really? I mean, you can when it's the national tide, 1980. We have a different press now. They have now made the decision they will control the political process. They are serving—with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the networks and these newspapers are, in effect, contributing—in-kind contributions to candidates in the Democratic Party. That's the legal issue that I would have been exploring. I mean, I would begin to put the heat on.
But the Republicans never said a word. When Comcast, which bought out the administration—they're my cable company in Charleston, they're just so bad, I guess every cable company is awful, but they're the worst—buys a network, is allowed to buy a network—the Justice Department allowed this—no Republican stood up and said, "This should be stopped!" I mean, really! You get what you ask for. So, anyway, I've got to go. I've got to go do TV.
ARONOFF: Thank you very much.


text:
SNOW HILL — After he completes his 16th year serving as Worcester County's Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Jon Andes will retire next June.
"Jon Andes has been a tremendous asset for our school system," said Board of Education President Bob Hulburd. "He understands that we shouldn't be defined by who we are today. Instead, as students and educators, we should be defined by what we will become tomorrow."
Andes announced his retirement during the board meeting Tuesday. It was an emotional moment, both for Andes and members of the board, some of whom have served with him for more than a decade. Coming to Worcester County in 1996, Andes remarked that his predecessors had already laid a lot of the groundwork he would use during his term in office.
"The school system was already very accomplished," remembered Andes. "Like my predecessors, I believed that we could further excel, overcoming the challenges that lay ahead, whether those challenges were associated with education reform, achievement gaps or aging facilities."
The effect Andes has had on county schools since 1996 is measurable and often praised. Based on the Maryland State Assessment, Worcester has finished among the highest rated schools in the state for several years, often leading the charts. Since Maryland has consistently been ranked amongst the top public school systems in the country and has been ranked number one three years running by Education Week magazine, this means that Worcester has some of the best public schools in the country, something attributed, at least partially, to Andes.
"Our culture of perpetual forward motion and growth has been sparked by Jon," said Hulburd, "and has enabled our students and schools to achieve at the highest levels in the state, year after year. We are deeply grateful for Jon's outstanding service and he will be sorely missed."
Also under Andes, all 14 Worcester public schools have achieved Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools Accreditation for Growth awards, a distinction only shared by one other county in the state. Additionally, prior to Andes taking the helm, Worcester had no Blue Ribbon of Excellence certified schools, either by the state criteria or national standards.
Today, four schools are National Blue Ribbon schools, while eight of the 12 eligible are Maryland Blue Ribbon schools, which gives Worcester more than any other county in the state.
Andes is leaving with some regrets, however.
"I was deeply disappointed when County Commissioners voted to postpone the Snow Hill High School renovation project on Oct. 4," he said. "The students of Snow Hill deserve an environment that will better prepare them for the complex world that lies ahead. We need to work together to fund this project. I will continue to push for this project."
A former Maryland Superintendent of the Year and recipient of the Maryland University Leadership Award, among a number of other honors, Andes is leaving "big shoes to be filled", according to Hulburd.
"Unanimously, we'd like to see Dr. Andes stay," said Hulburd on behalf of the board. "I don't even want to vote on [accepting his retirement]."
However, Hulburd agreed to respect Andes' decision and the retirement will go into effect on June 30, 2012.
"Jon Andes is not replaceable," said Hulburd, "but we will search for the qualities that need to be present to keep our momentum going. It won't be an easy task, but our future generations are depending on the decisions that this board will make. We take that responsibility very seriously."
The board will conduct a nationwide search to find its next superintendent.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Since its birth in 1956, the AI dream has been to build systems that exhibit broad-spectrum competence and intelligence. In the STAIR (STanford AI Robot) project, we are building a robot that can navigate home and office environments, pick up and interact with objects and tools, and intelligently converse with and help people in these environments.
Our single robot platform will integrate methods drawn from all areas of AI, including machine learning, vision, navigation, manipulation, planning, reasoning, and speech/natural language processing. This is in distinct contrast to the 30-year trend of working on fragmented AI sub-fields, and will be a vehicle for driving research towards true integrated AI.
Over the long term, we envision a single robot that can perform tasks such as:
- Fetch or deliver items around the home or office.
- Tidy up a room, including picking up and throwing away trash, and using the dishwasher.
- Prepare meals using a normal kitchen.
- Use tools to assemble a bookshelf.


text:
Paul Dacre must die!
By the standards of swear blogging (including some of my own angrier responses to Mail articles), it was fairly tame stuff. Arscott wrote:
I hope Paul Dacre dies a slow and painful death and that people queue up to shit on his grave.
Thanks to Google's wonderful algorithms, his post somehow became (and remains, for now) the second result when you search for Paul Dacre. Whether or not Dacre was Googling his own name (doubtful, considering his aversion to the internet) or he was simply alerted to it by an underling, it seems that he was enraged enough by Kevin's impertinence to set the Mail's lawyers after him. As Unity points out, it's apparent that nothing he wrote is either libellous or defamatory; it's simply abuse, nor is it similar to yesterday's case where a man in Northern Ireland was convicted of an offence after writing on Facebook that a DUP MP should "get a bullet in the head". Arscott merely hopes Dacre dies a slow and painful death, not the most pleasant thing to say, but by considering the depths some on the internet sink to it's incredibly tame.
The Mail's lawyers must have known that the chances of winning any case for defamation on something so slight were minute; that almost certainly wasn't their aim, however. Just through sending their threatening email to Angry Mob's UK based hosting company they will have counted on them caving in immediately, thanks to the notorious Demon ruling and successive EC directives, or demand that he take it down himself or else they'd terminate his account for breach of their terms of service. They did the second, and like myself when faced by threats from Schillings over Alisher Usmanov and Craig Murray, he's removed the post for now.
It is remarkable though, isn't it, that the editor of the very newspaper which has so fiercely campaigned against super-injunctions now resorts to the use of solicitors over something so unbelievably petty: he doesn't want an affair or something embarrassing about his private life hidden away, he just wants someone being nasty about him on the internet to feel his wrath. The editor of a newspaper that repeatedly attacks those whom it thinks have risen above their station, whether it be through a perceived lack of class or for "outraging decency", who feels so self-concious about the second Google result for his name being something that isn't entirely adulatory. An editor who according to numerous accounts treats his staff in the typical tabloid fashion, where they ask each other whether they've been "double-cunted" that day, having been called a cunt twice in one sentence by a man who dedicates page after page to why-oh-whying over the supposed decline of standards, dares to send in expensive briefs over a 2-year-old post which doesn't even begin to lower itself to such name-calling.
Mr Dacre, if you or your solicitors happen to come across this, I too hope that you die a slow and painful death and that people queue up to shit on your grave. It won't even begin to make up for the shit you've been forcing down the throats of the English public for the last 19 years.
Labels: abuses by tabloids, bloggocks, Daily Mail, Daily Mail-watch, legal threats, Mail-watch, Paul Dacre


text:
REUTERS Wednesday, 29 January 2014 10:20 AM EST
The greenlight for the plants comes only two weeks after Asia's fourth-largest economy announced a policy shift to cut its reliance on nuclear power to 29 percent of total power supply by 2035, down from a planned 41 percent by 2030.
A series of nuclear reactor shutdowns since late 2012 due to safety issues have raised the risk of blackouts, putting pressure on policy makers to maintain power supplies in a economy relying on energy intensive industries such as autos, steel and electronics.
The approvals will also encourage South Korea's nuclear power industry, which still aims to export its expertise into a global market dominated by France, the United States and Russia.
South Korea, which ranks fifth globally in nuclear power generation, has largely developed its own nuclear industry, building and operating its reactors through state-run utility Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO).
A KEPCO-led consortium won a contract in 2009 to build four nuclear reactors in the United Arab Emirates and started construction in mid-2012.
But Seoul has faced public pressure to curb its use of nuclear power after Japan's Fukushima disaster and to rebuild confidence in the industry after a scandal over parts supplied using fake certificates.
It adopted a lower target for nuclear power earlier this month, but still plans to double its nuclear capacity over the next two decades as its state-run industry builds at least 16 new domestic reactors and is pushes for overseas sales.
An anti-nuclear power group said by backing more plants the government was not taking into account worries over safety.
"In this sense, it shows the government is ignoring concerns triggered by the Fukushima case and from civic groups urging them not to use nuclear power," said Lee Heon-seok, a representative of the Energy Justice Action group.
South Korea has 23 nuclear reactors, which generate about a third of its electricity and any move away from nuclear would mean it had to spend billions of dollars to pay for extra fossil fuel imports.
On Wednesday, South Korea shut down one nuclear power plant due to a technical glitch, taking the number of reactors closed to four and increasing the risk of power shortages over winter.
The new plants approved on Wednesday will be on top of five nuclear power plants already under construction and another four planned, including one that will be completed in July this year.
The power plants will have 1,400-megawatt capacity each, and are due to be completed by the end of 2020 and cost 7.6 trillion won ($7.0 billion).
The KEPCO-led consortium building the new plants includes Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Co Ltd, Samsung C&T Corp, Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd, Westinghouse Electric Co owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp, according to a KEPCO official.
© 2024 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.
Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.


text:
Ford Windstar Alternator and Battery Problems
Has anyone changed these items?
Do you have a link detailing the process?
Do you have any other helpful hints to successfully accomplish this task?
Do you have a link detailing the process?
Do you have any other helpful hints to successfully accomplish this task?
jeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855Do you have a link detailing the process?
autozone.com gives free access to repair manuals, you might check there.
I successfully replaced our alternator by giving a mechanic about $325.0 -
seloo Member Posts: 606Good response!
A new alternator is about $180,a new belt is around $20.
$125 for labor is not bad, but I like a challenge.
Anyone else have any good tips?0 -
acelady Member Posts: 10My alternator died on the way home from work and left me stranded on the roadside.
The final bill, including the tow, was over $300.00.
It sucks to not be mechanically gifted! Wish I could have done it myself.
I know the mechanic said that the alternator alone was almost $200.00, the tow was about $50.00 and the labor around $60.00.0 -
seloo Member Posts: 606Well, it may not be the alternator or battery, both tested good at Advanced Auto last night.
Maybe something is draining the battery? Has anyone has this problem?
Or maybe that can of WD-40 I sprayed (yesterday) into the inter workings of my alternator fixed the voltage output problem found during the Autozone test on Monday? Or maybe not!0 -
rose19805 Member Posts: 7I just finished replacing the battery about a month ago in my 2003 Windstar. The battery light had been coming on but the battery was strong. Now the light is coming on with the new battery in it. I thought about the alternator but this seems weird since the van only has 32000 miles on it. I will be having a mechanic look at it next week. Has anyone had this problem? I also have noticed that at times the abs,brake parking and battery lights come on when I'm driving. Also the inside lights come on at odd times when I'm driving.0
dalemccarthy Member Posts: 1I have the exact same problem with my Windstar. I also had my altenator checked and replaced my battery. Do you have any idea what is causing this? Any information would be great.0
rose19805 Member Posts: 7Still haven't gotten to the mechanic. The van is running fine except for the darn battery light coming on most of the time. My friend said he thinks it's programmed to do this so you'll take it in to the ford dealer and be charged big bucks. I'm not convinced of his theory although I wouldn't be surprised. Did you have the alternator checked out and if so what did it show?0
softballmom Member Posts: 1Hi everyone! This is the first time on the site for me and i've read most of the comments but not sure if anyone has had my experience. Here goes-- I have owned my vehicle for almost 5 years actually I have 2 pmts left and the only problem so far where the transmission replacement and the open door light staying on. I've had it pretty good considering what the rest of you have been going through. Recently though I have MAJOR issues!!! In February, I had driven my car all day with no problems and when I was on my way home, I noticed my ABS light on seconds before the stereo shut off and the lights (head and dash)dimmed and shut off, my interior lights and flashers came on and the car stalled within seconds of me getting off the road. All of this happened at the same time and in a total of about one minute. My husband installed a new alternator and the van ran fine until this Mon.(Apr.9) and we had a repeat. The car jumped fine, I got back home, put the overnight battery charger on, took the car in to check the battery and ended up replacing it. Thinking that is all fixed. I drove it today, I made it 5 miles on a brand new battery and the vehicle shut off again and the battery was completely drained. Charged it for 3 hours, made it four miles and stalled. Jumped it, drove one mile home and it stalled again. The first two times it happened the ignition justed clicked when I tried starting it, the third time it did nothing. Does anyone know what the heck is going on?? I have called Ford and been told it is probably a short but they have never heard of it happening before.0
umwijaya Member Posts: 4Go to the forum sedan, ford Taurus, alternator, I just read and the guys said .. the problem is mega fuse located on the compatrment engine fuse box and cost him only $5...good luck... i had the similiar problem but on my mPV MAzda 2001... nontheless MPV MAzda is using FORD Engine :surprise: ...
TJ wija0 -
emuagd Member Posts: 1My 2003 Windstar is doing the same exact thing right now. We just replaced the alternator and battery too. I was wondering with your van, what ended up being the problem?0
djembeplayer Member Posts: 4Hi, I just read all the msgs regarding the Windstar. Wish I knew all this before I bought my "great deal". I am having an issue with a 2000 Windstar, which seems similar and just looking for advice before I replace the alternator, battery or fuse. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.0
umwijaya Member Posts: 4I brought my Mazda MPV Van to the dealer. They checked it up for almost one hour and told me that they need additional hours to check up the wiring system and asked if i am willing to come back next week. I told them i am an electrician mechanic, i had checked up all the wiring system and found nothing wrong. My assumtiong is the computer data system that need to be address. I decided not to go back with them and do nothing with warning light. MY alternator is working. the only problem is the light only. So i didnt bother to go back with them. Today, most dealership just looking for opportunity to make money.
jw0 -
djembeplayer Member Posts: 4Ok, thanks for the info. I replaced the battery today and seems ok right now the alternator tested out OK. Thanks again.0
gcase Member Posts: 1I also own a 2003 windstar iam experenceing the same problem except when i removed the key my head lights came on tried to get them to go out they started flashing. did you ever find out what was causing your problem what was the out come0
djembeplayer Member Posts: 4I found that the wiper motor had water inside the electrical connection. If you need to take out the wiper motor get the manual (Haynes) for the steps. But, to make a long story short, take out the cover (plastic and metal) then the motor is accessible. So, after I replaced the motor I added silicon to the cover of the motor and the shroud to avoid water getting in again. Best of luck.0
jefbyls Member Posts: 5I just bought a used 2001 Ford Windstar Limited with 74K on it. The exact same thing is happening. I am going to AutoZone today to have the battery and alternator checked. I am wondering what will be next. I read the posts on the megafuse and the wiper motor and will check them as well. Why is there so much trouble trying to get a straight answer from Ford? Have you gotten a remedy of your situation yet? If so, what did you finally do to fix it?0
djembeplayer Member Posts: 4See my previous post #18 for the remedy to my situation. You might be able to tell if the FRONT wiper motor is bad just from physical inspection. The outside was rusting a little and had paint chipping off. The plastic shroud or cover that goes across the front has holes in it for water to pass through, well one of the holes was right above the wiper motor...nice hey? Silicone to fix that.
The answer from Ford was this was a recall back in 2000 I think, this site will have that info too. But, the recall is only good once or 10k miles. BS. Good luck.0 -
mfacdgba33 Member Posts: 19Replaceing both of these is not really that hard. Almost anyone can do it if you really wanted to. I am a certified mech in TN and if anyone told me or anyone i knew that it would cost me 57.64 for a alternator than i would smack him in his left nostril. If you want to try to do this yourself you can go to auto zone and they will give you a print out for the step by step process on replaceing it. A few socket wrenchs and a metal bar to apply pressure to add tension to the belt and bingo your done. It should only take you about 30 minutes to do if you dont run into any more issue while doing it.0
mfacdgba33 Member Posts: 19As a AAA Mchanic i see this all the time. First check for loose battery terminal connections. Then if those are good then get a voltmeter start the van and on the dc side look and see what the volts read. A battery will put out 12.6 volts with no loads. While the engine is running your alternator will put out a constant 14.2 volts with no loads while driving or idle. If this is fine then trace the wires from your positve terminal down all the way to the starter looking for bare wires and places that it might be arcing off on metal. Do the same with the negitive wire all the way to the ground point. If all of those are fine then replace the 12 volt regulator. If none of those are the issue then ignore the light.0
dthorne Member Posts: 1I have a 2002 windstar - two weeks ago the battery light came on - then on Friday past, I was driving and all of a sudden I lost all power options, just like the battery died completly. Also, at that same time, the abs and hand brake light came on. I hauled over, popped the hood..... I reached in and manually reved the engine over high then everything came back. I replaced the alternator and had the battery tested..... same thing is still happening... If I rev it high enough, the battery light will go off for about 10 secs. I could be driving down the road and lose all the power options again.... rev her high and it all comes back.... this is very frustrating! I check fuses and all are good! ANY IDEAS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.0
rcode72ho Member Posts: 1I am experiencing the exact problem. I cleaned the battery terminals and posts and checked all connections - nothing. I put in a new battery and changed the alternator. Still not fixed. The belt is fine. I went to Auto Zone to have it tested. The machine said it was the wiring. I bought a new battery harness assembly from FORD for $199+ tax. Still the light is on. The battery drains after driving with the battery light on, so it's not a faulty light signal. I'm at a loss. ANYBODY??0
joebeekool Member Posts: 1Today, the ABS light came on; after turning off the van the reset the light, it would not start. We waited a few minutes, tried again and it started up with the ABS light still on. After turning a corner, the left signal continued to blink all the ay home while the lever was in the nuetral position. Could not turn it off even putting into the right turn position; then the A/C shut down, then all of the power features: doors, windows and the radio.
Got the van home and after a few minutes, everyting started working again. Started it later tonight to move onto parking area.
Thought about replacing the battery, but I think there is something else wrong.Any thoughts???0 -
jefbyls Member Posts: 5I had the same problem and after much money trying to replace this and that I took it to the dealership. The mechanic said that they see it several times a year. The wires that pass through the driver's door gets broken and shorts out, everytime it shorts out you experience the electircal problems. He said other common places that the wires break are at the passenger door and the liftback door. If you pull off the boot between the door you may be able to find your problem.0
mfacdgba33 Member Posts: 19Check with a volt meter connected to the battery terminals while the vehicle is running. A battery will put out 12.6 volts normally. while the vehicle is running the altanator should be outting out at least 13 volts or more. hopefully at least 14 which is perfect. If the battery is draining while driveing then your altanator isnt doing its job.0
jmarzy Member Posts: 3I have a 2003 Windstar. Just last night, abs light, flashing radio, light on an off and when I pulled over it died and would not start. I see the same complaint posted several times but I am not sure I am reading a definitive answer. Did I miss something?0
jefbyls Member Posts: 5I finally took mine in to a dealership and found out it is a common problem with the windstars. It is caused by a wire being shorted out in one of the doors, usually the driver's door or the liftgate. Take the rubber boot off that covers the wires going between the door and the body and check for wires that have been worn or cut. Once you find the wire and splice it the problem will be fixed.0
tamib Member Posts: 3I just got stranded because my 2000 Windstar quit running but right before that the radio, AC, lights, etc. all went out, then a minute later the van died. I had it towed ot a dealership but after reading this forum I"m beginning to think it is something in the wiring. I can not get the electrical doors to open and close half of the time. I am constantly hitting the unlock button hoping that will make the doors open or close right. Maybe I"ve messed something up with hitting the unlock button so often. Anyway, I'm not sure why I've kept this van so long, it's been nothing but problems since the warrantly went out. The auto place thinks it's the alternator but I"m not so sure after reading this, we just replaced the battery 2 days ago.0
jmarzy Member Posts: 3Well, as I have posted recently I experienced the same problems in my 2003 Windstar. I first took it to my local mechanic who said it was the battery. Now it was the original battery and I have about 97k miles logged. So I crossed my fingers hopping it was just the battery. And I thought changing the battery after 5 years was a bad thing. Well after 3 days of driving the car did the same thing. But this time I was prepared for the symptoms and had enough time to park in a safe place before calling a friend to pick me up. The next day I drove it limping into the Ford dealership and they said it was the alternator. Now form reading the posts I am not sure if it will make it more then 3 days but I will keep you updated.0
tamib Member Posts: 3I can't remember everything I said in my first post.... But on Monday after the van died the mechanic said the alternator was shot. He's been a trustworthy mechanic for our van for a long time. He said a bad alternator would ruin the battery so I can see how that's connected. After reading the posts I called the mechanic and told him to take the "electric" door switch off because we've been having a lot of trouble with the doors not opening or not shutting all the way for a few months. Someone said the wiring in the doors can cause the same symptoms. At least now we're driving around with our sliding doors closed all the way where they never closed right lately. I will never buy another Ford van, it's been a horrible experience all along.0
supermom39 Member Posts: 1I own a 2003 Windstar and the first hing that started on mine if that when ever I would go over a bump the ABS and the Brake lights would come on. Once I tuned the van off and restarted the lights would go out. Now my battery liht has come on and Iam not sure if I am going to run into the same problems as everyone else. I purchased this van in 2004, they were using it as a transport van taking customers to other lots or using it to go pick up parts, either way it has taken me a long way at times, so I am hoping that it is the wiring, because it is probably cheaper than replacing the battery or alternator if it is not going to work. Any suggestions? Please help is you can.0
tamib Member Posts: 3My guess is that it is the battery, which is less than a $100. Just don't go to Wal mart because mine never last 2 years so I keep getting a new one replaced for free under their 2 year warranty, but I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't the quality of the batteries. Someone said that you can go to Auto Zone, Jiffy Lube, O'Reilly and they'll check your battery for free. Have you noticed your car not starting as easy lately, I did have that happen but just chose to ignore the battery light but it wasn't long before the battery went dead and left me stranded in a parking lot. It's amazing to me how many people have the same problems with their vans, these vans are lemons.0
Whyrulaughin Member Posts: 1I was pretty sure my moms van needed a new alternator. She called me saying she was driving and the battery light came on, then the abs light i think, and she parked and it died and wouldnt start again. I met her and hooked jumper cables up to her car. It started right away, but after disconnecting the cables the battery light came on again and it started clicking and died. After reading the posts in here, im getting closer to thinking it is a wire connection making it short out. If it had been the alternator, the car would have been running on pure battery and even with cables it would not have started as quickly. I will be reposting whether or not i found a bad wire connection and if it fixed the problem. :mad: :P0
bmccallister Member Posts: 1i have a 99 windstar the alternator died i had it rebuilt now the battery light stays on and everything is strong also the abs light comes on0
rose19805 Member Posts: 7Since I replaced the battery and alternator, I've had no problems with my 2003 Windstar. Hope you find the problem.0
fordsux Member Posts: 8Ford Tells everyone they have never heard of their problems. When you call them make sure you refer to your van as a 2000 windcrap and maybe that will help them pull their heads out of their asses. Now everyone knows why people refer to fords as fixed or repaired daily or found on road dead!0
coffeeboy1 Member Posts: 2My problem with the warning lights have been over a year, but just last week my 2001 Windstar's lights flashed, and it died just like that! I had it towed, on the charger for 10 minutes, and it ran fine. But it the battery will go dead in a flash and the problems all exist. I take my key out of the ignition, and my interior lights come on, stick the key back in and they go off, all while the car is dead. Finally the batter will go completely since lights are on. It even was at a point where my key would not turn the ignition, but that finally disapeared. Can this be the alternator, or is it more likely to be the wiring? I am far from a Auto Zone.0
coffeeboy1 Member Posts: 2There are two options for my 2001 Windstar, it tests bad, and I have nearly ALL the problems in this forum. There is a choice for high output and another with a little lower. I do not have power doors, just power windows (like all new cars) and drivers side power seat. That is about it for special functions. Can I get by with the cheaper one?0
us2bcrow Member Posts: 1I have a 2003 WIndstar with all of the aforementioned issues. We have replaced the battery, and been though 2 alternators in the last year and STILL last week it was dead once again!!!! We do have an issue of the interior lights flashing off and on as you drive down the road, and the drivers door lock not working properly. The idea that there is a wiring problem somewhere makes a lot of sense to me and if I can't find a sucker to buy my van while I have it running, I will check that out. This possessed van is definitely my first and LAST Ford! It's a shame that such a nice, comfortable vehicle is not more mechanically sound0
rose19805 Member Posts: 7I posted over two years ago about my van. I replaced the battery and alternator and since has not given me any problems holding a charge. I have had problems as others with the interior lights coming on at odd times.
Also one of the passenger doors doesn't work at times with the remote.
And sometimes the passenger side window will not open or close.
I've gotten some great ideas on correcting this and will have my boyfriend check this out.
Thanks to all for the ideas.0 -
mrnmrsweibel1 Member Posts: 4I have a 2000 Windstar that I've been having issues with and assumed was the alternator until I read this forum. So, I am now wondering if it could be something else and was wondering what some others found out. Last winter my van started idoling funny and acting like it wanted to stall. It only did it when it was very cold and seemed to be worse if I had the radio on. When I let my husband know he told me the radio would not make the van want to stall and off to the garage we went. They ran some tests but could not come up with anything conclusive due to my check engine light always being on (has been since we bought it five years ago). So, we had them replace some of the things they thought it could be, one being the air intake valve. Anyhow nothing seemed to really help and I just learned to live with it. All summer long I had no problems other than having the battery replaced simply because it was time. Well, now that it is winter again it has started all over. When I mentioned it to my husband he said it sounds like the alternator and it would effect other things such as radio. (Had to bust him for telling me it had nothing to do with it last year.). I was planning on having it fixed but now I don't know if it is that. Is there a test for alternators? The symptoms are "jumping, kind of shaking" while idoling but stops if I turn off radio or start to drive again. There is also a noise that I referred to as a lower sound of a belt going. Any advise is very appreciated.0
jefbyls Member Posts: 5Dear Mr & Mrs Weibel,
I had the same problem. After fixing a few things I found the answer by taking it to a Ford dealership. Mine is a 2001 Windstar. The stalling like behavior was due to a leak in the air intake manifold gasket. I had to have the manifold, gasket, and pins replaced. This cost about $350. The radio's odd behavior was due to a grounding wire not being screwed in tight and losing its ground. The screw was located on top of the radiator housing next to the hood latch mechanism. This was a simple fix, just tighten the screw down.0 -
avespks Member Posts: 1I have a 2001 Windstar SE with approx. 120,000 miles on it. I got it last year after it had been basically sitting (driven once a week) for about 3 or 4 years. The car worked great for the first 3 or 4 months, except for a rough idle when the weather got cold (bouncing tach), which disappeared when I could get it up to speed. It died on me a few months after getting it; I replaced the alternator and battery and everything was fine until around March of this year. The battery light started coming on at random times; sometimes if I'd just started the van, I would park it and take my other car, come back later, and the problem would be gone. Other times it would come on briefly after starting the van, then disappear after I got the car up to speed. This happened approx. 5-6 times since then, often when it was cold out, once where the ABS, battery, and a few other lights came on,but again I was able to limp home. I was driving it 2 weeks ago and it started wanting to stall out when I would come to a stop, the dash and headlights would dim as the tach would bounce. I got it home and the next morning it stalled out, completely shutting off in the middle of a major road (luckily with no traffic on it), all the warning lights coming on. Curiously though, it started right back up after I got it over to the side of the road. I had a mechanic I trust look at it, and he replaced the intake valves, which he said were causing the rough idle (and it does seem fixed), and checked a few other things, but said my alternator (1 year old), battery (2 weeks old), and any other thing he could think to check were fine. I got it back Tuesday and have put about 200 miles on it since. Today, driving home from work, while stopped in traffic, the battery light briefly came on again. I turned off the heat and the radio and revved the engine, and it went away, and after I got it up to speed it was fine, I stopped somewhere and it started back up just fine. Also, the passenger side windows have not worked in a few years, so I will be interested to see if I can find anything to fix in those door wire bundles.
Thanks for the info.0 -
fordinpr Member Posts: 1I have a 2001 Windstar. It is at the Ford shop getting its fourth alternator and third PCM within two weeks. The first alternator stopped charging. The second one worked for a few hours then stopped charging. The third one began smoking right away, as the meter showed 17.8 volts. The mechanic has done extensive diagnostics, replaced wiring, etc. This is getting very frustrating. Any ideas much appreciated. :confuse:0
mrnmrsweibel1 Member Posts: 4It sounds like your van is doing the same exact thing as mine. I have a post about it all too. Unfortunately, I have yet to find out what it is and may be getting rid of it due to other issues. If you find out what the problem is would you let me know and I will in same inform you if I find it if I keep it and continue having it worked on. I did have my intake manifold replaced last year when it all started and it wasn't that. I have also had a new battery put in, and the last thing they just did was something to do with the idoling. I can't remember exactly what but it was some switch that opens and closes when idoling and mine was stuck. That didn't help either. I took it to auto zone and they said the alternator tested fine but it showed there was power being drained when there shouldn't have been. It only does it if it is cold outside. Started last winter, was fine all summer and started again this winter. And, as you said it is when you are stopped but doesn't seem to do it while in park if I am warming up the van. Please let me know if you find out the problem. I would like to factor it into the cost of having the van fixed or getting rid of it. I have to have the frame replaced to keep it due to rust and I am trying to decide if I should or just buy something else. Thank you.0
eesofgraham Member Posts: 1I have a 2002 Windstar with a similar problem to others in this thread. The main issue is that the battery goes flat if the Van isn't used for a few days.
I have done some diagnostics and found the following:
1. The drain seems to be related to the interior lights, based on pulling fuses. The biggest change comes when pulling fuse 1 of the internal fuse panel.
2. The entry lights for the sliding doors seem to stay on sometimes, even when the Van has been turned off and locked for quite a while. It may be happening regularly but because they are down low behind the driver they simply don't get noticed, especially in daylight.
3. I took the bulbs out of these two entry lights and checked the current drain through the battery and it seems to be in the 500-650mA range - it gets lower with time; 500mA seems to be about the minimum.
4. This remaining current looks to be related to coil current on internal Relays 1&4. If I pull them the draw goes down to around 50mA, which is probably about the lowest it will go on a normal vehicle.
I haven't yet looked at the connector under the driver's area carpet - a suggestion from another forum. That will be next on my list. (I am still confused as to why the two internal entry lights for the sliding door areas would stay on while other internal lights switch off - probably a clue but I don't have a decent wiring diagram).
I did also check the door open alarm on all the doors and it works well, suggesting all the door switches are operating correctly. Alternator checks out OK, as does the battery.
(Also it seems this problem is worse in cold weather, but that may simply be related to battery capacity vs. temperature).
Suggestions welcome.
0 -
artf86 Member Posts: 4Hi Guy, I have the same problem as you have with you Windstar, have tried everything I know to fix it. I just now try and start it every day, I am almost positive it is in the light control. The dim light is to me the issue, I can get the dim wheel in just the right position and all is well for weeks at a time, but if I touch it to turn on the overhead lights then I am back to a dead battery in the morning. I have noticed that the rear interior lights have stayed on a time or two, but don't know if it is the switch or the auto turnoff relay/control.If you know of any cure let me know please. Also the dash display ( MPG, Miles To empty Compass etc} has quit working, have no idea why. Had it scanned and nothing showed up . Love my Van except for these issues. Any ideas, please if you would let me know. Regards... Art0
bert02 Member Posts: 2Nice to hear this. At least I can find another way of checking the alternator. I have a 2000 Windstar 3.8L 125000. My alternator died after 3 months when we bought the van. Luckily I bought a replacement with life-time warranty. It last for 1.5 years then died again. I had to replace it again for free except my own labor. I used a iron bar to pry the alternator back to its origional position instead of adjusting the belt tensioner. I don't have the fuse problem. For these DIY, one can try to use a iron bar to push the alternator back to its position. Simply put one bolts (has 3 bolts) first and use the bar to adjust the alternator to correct options, ask helper to tight 2nd bolts. This way, you don't need to mess up with the engine belt system.


text:
Now that Christmas is over for another year and life has gone back to normal, are you already feeling tired and fed up with the daily grind? Day after day you drag yourself out of bed to go to a job which you probably don't even like very much, working long hours for peanuts, coping with train strikes and traffic jams on your daily commute.
Have you ever wondered if there is more to life than this? Could there be another way to earn a living?
Have you ever heard of passive income?
Passive income is where you do the work just once then sit back and let the money come in virtually on auto pilot. This leaves you with plenty of free time to enjoy life with your friends and family, take holidays whenever you want and not just for two weeks in summer, to spend your days doing what you want, not what someone else tells you to do. And to have enough money to live life on your terms.
The most reliable route to passive income is through internet marketing.
This can take several forms; Selling your own products online via a simple website which is free to set up. Promoting other people's products as an affiliate and earning commission for every sale they make. Buying the licence to ready-made digital products and having the right to sell them as your own, internationally. And many more proven methods of making a very lucrative income online.
Affiliate marketing is good for those who don't yet have an idea for their own product or the money to buy licences. The biggest marketplace for affiliates is ClickBank.com. There are literally thousands of products available with vendors paying, on average, between 50% and 80% in commissions. All you have to do is to send prospects to the vendor's website and the vendor will do the rest. A website is not essential (although it helps with product promotion) and you don't need to do anything complex in order to make money.
Product licensing is very lucrative and licenses can be bought for surprisingly little. You then have a ready-made product which you can sell worldwide. You don't even need to make any copies or post them to buyers as orders can be processed through a fulfilment house – for a very small fee they will make a copy of your product, wrap it and ship it to the customer. Leaving you with more time to enjoy life.
Just imagine being able to walk into your boss's office and hand in your notice. To see a fabulous new car and pay cash for it. To book that exotic holiday that you've been craving for years but have never had the money. To put your children through private school and university without the stress of student loans. How would that feel? What would that be worth to you?
There is work to be done initially but once it's done you can sit back and relax, knowing that everything is ticking away nicely in the background. Dream come true? No, it can be the reality. Your reality. You owe it to yourself and your family to make 2017 the year that you grab the opportunity to live life on your terms.
Source: www.askpaccosi.com
Using WhatsApp? You Can Join Our Group Chat Here: http://chat.whatsapp.com/J0r9mDzO2zMBiLr3jEXaLi
Using Telegram? You Can Join Our Group Chat Here: https://t.me/BTC_Bunch
You Will Get Coupon Codes, Rewards, Daily Updates, Bonuses, And Also Get Notified When We Refill Funds.


text:
The following question is a bit technical, and I haven't got to grips with it enough to be able to present it as a well-focused question. However, my hope is that the collective group-theoretic expertise on MO may spot something in there that follows from standard results, or which is likely to be intractable by way of connection to open problems.
Let $G$ be a finite group, equipped with normalized counting measure. If $\chi$ is an irreducible character on $G$ then standard theory/calculations show that it has $\ell^2$-norm equal to $1$; it follows easily from this that the $\ell^1$-norm of $\chi$ is $\geq d^{-1}$ where $d$ is the degree of $\chi$. If equality actually holds (which, as I'll discuss below, seems to be very restrictive) then let's say that $\chi$ is $1$-minimal (non-standard terminology).
$1$-minimal characters of degree $>1$ give rise to some interesting ideals in the centre of (algebras built from) $\ell^1(G)$, which I and some colleagues have been looking at. We have run into the following question which seems to lie out of our main expertise.
Question 1. for which groups $G$ are all the irreducible characters $1$-minimal?
Call such a group $1$-minimal, for want of a better term at present. Every abelian group is $1$-minimal, as is the dihedral group of order 8 (to my initial surprise). It is not hard to show that products of $1$-minimal groups also have the property.
Here is the small amount I can show so far. A little calculation shows that if $\pi$ is an irrep of $G$, then its trace $\chi$ is a $1$-minimal character if and only if $\pi(x)$ is either traceless or a scalar multiple of the identity. Writing $d$ for the degree of $\pi$, it follows that the support of $\chi$ is a normal subgroup $K$ of $G$, containing $Z(G)$, with the index of $K$ in $G$ being $d^2$. This already seems to preclude many groups from being $1$-minimal.
The above shows that $d\chi$ is induced from some 1-dimensional representation of $K$, but I haven't succeeded in using this to get much leverage. Other partial results: if $\pi$, $\chi$, $d$, $K$ are as above, and every non-linear character of $G$ has degree $\geq d$, then one can play around with the conjugation representation associated to $\pi$ to show that $G/K$ is abelian. Unfortunately, restricting attention to cases where $d$ is small makes it harder to get control on $K$...
So far, the only examples of $1$-minimal groups that I have found are products of abelian groups with copies of $D_4$. All these examples are solvable and have non-trivial centre, which leads me to some more focused questions.
Question 2. Can we characterize those solvable, finite groups which are $1$-minimal?
Question 3. Do there exist $1$-minimal groups with trivial centre?
A final remark/piece of context: some foraging via Google and MathSciNet suggests that this problem might be connected with the old problem of characterizing the finite groups of "central type", namely those groups $G$ for which there is an irreducible character of degree $d$ where $d^2= | G: Z(G) |$ ( we always have $d^2\leq |G:Z(G)|$ for any group). However, it is not clear to me that the present question is either contained in, or contains, this older one.
Update 5th Jan. 2012: Thanks to the arguments given below by F. Ladisch and M. Isaacs, we have the following: every $1$-minimal group is nilpotent (so that Question 3 has a negative answer if we exclude the trivial group) and every nilpotent group of class $2$ is $1$-minimal.
For an explanation of why I and my colleagues were interested in the condition of $1$-minimality, see Theorem 4.2 of our preprint 1110.6683. Note for the record that parts of the paper form part of the PhD thesis of the first author, which is at time of writing still in progress.


text:
T-shirts are now more popular than suits for work
According to new research, less than a fifth of people said they would still wear a suit for work, suggesting that casual clothes are becoming the new office wear as employees embrace comfier alternatives.
A survey of 2,000 office workers revealed that Brits are only spending a meagre 23 minutes a day on their appearance, with one in five spending less than ten minutes getting ready.
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe North East are leading the way for casual wear, with almost half of people opting for a t-shirt or polo shirt instead of traditional shirts or blouses, while those in the North West are sticking with the formal attire – with a third still donning a suit. The average North West workers work wardrobe costs £394.63.
Alongside slacking dress codes, workers are spending less time laundering – with one in six happy to wear the same shirt all week.
Extraordinarily, a whopping 42% of people claimed to sometimes not wear underwear to work, and 53% of us occasionally don't bother with socks, revealed the study by Printerland.co.uk.
Despite many not putting the effort into their appearance, those surveyed still disapproved of their colleague's outfits, with 82% saying Ugg boots were inappropriate office wear.
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdA shocking 27% of respondents deemed make-up completely unacceptable at work and almost half said that high heels are a big no-no and that beards should be banned.
Catherine Bannan, HR Manager at Printerland.co.uk said: "Wearing casual clothes in the workplace can make people feel more comfortable and thereby increase the productivity and creativity of your staff.
"Offices are taking a much more relaxed approach to work attire these days and some say that being in clothes we find comfortable can spark our imagination. Obviously, you might have a meeting with some important clients and so you would want to dress appropriately for that."
The survey also found that bosses in Northern Ireland are the strictest when it comes to tattoos and piercings, with over a third of employees told to cover up in the office. However, the Welsh are the most relaxed, with 57% of staff allowed to show piercings and body art.
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdDespite spending less time and effort on their appearance, Brits still splash out an average of £397 on their work wardrobe, with the over 55s deemed the biggest spenders.
Most unacceptable items to wear in the office
Crop tops
Casual headwear (e.g. baseball cap)
Jeans with holes
Low cut tops
Ugg boots
Short skirts
Tight dress
Sleeveless tops
High heels


text:
Spike TV is putting its money where its mouth is with its new series Hungry Investors, Sunday nights at 10/9c. The new original series brings together Bar Rescue star Jon Taffer, celebrity chef John Besh and Top Chef All Star Tiffany Derry, as they evaluate competing restaurants to decide which is worthy of a significant investment.
In each episode, the three experts visit two diamond-in-the-rough restaurants; establishments that are struggling, despite having amazing potential. The two local restaurants are pitted against each other as they make every effort to prove to the "hungry investors" that their business is the one worth saving. The restaurant that demonstrates the most promise for success will receive a life-altering investment. Check out a sneak peak in the video above, then tune-in to a new episode, this Sunday, May 11 at 10/9c, only on Spike. Watch more exclusive clips from the show. >>


text:
This is so not anything academic
So if you want to know about the Blogfest I'd like to have at the AHA,
click here!
Now, for those of you who are feeling girly today, can I just say, I broke down and the annual Sexy man edition of People. Damn. And again, Damn. There are some pretty boys out there. Slightly scarey that the oldest ones are all about my age, though. And I don't get the Jude Law thing at all. But Colin Firth made it.


text:
Apartments in Seattle , WA
Artix apartments offer a new way to live in Seattle's Queen Anne neighborhood. They boast stunning 360deg views from the rooftops of Seattle's Puget Sound and the city skyline, including Space Needle. Artix is inspired by the unique design aesthetic of local street artists and the many arts-inspired venues in Uptown. Our extensive selection of studio, one and two-bedroom floor plans offer elegant, luxurious design elements such as air conditioning, private decks, and floor-to-celling windows.
Seattle ( (listen) see-AT-əl) is a seaport city on the West Coast of the United States. It is the seat of King County, Washington. With a 2020 population of 737,015, it is the largest city in both the state of Washington and the Pacific Northwest region of North America. The Seattle metropolitan area's population is 4.02 million, making it the 15th-largest in the United States. Its growth rate of 21.1% between 2010 and 2020 makes it one of the nation's fastest-growing large cities.Seattle is situated on an isthmus between Puget Sound (an inlet of the Pacific Ocean) and Lake Washington.
Adams, Arbor Heights, Arroyo Heights, Atlantic, Bitter Lake, Briarcliff, Brighton, Broadview, Bryant, Cedar Park, Cherry Hill, Crown Hill, Denny Triangle, Dunlap, Eastlake